"Close" button is not consistent

[YannUbuntu]

Generally the "Close" button closes the application, but sometimes it does not (instead it minimizes the application in the systray, e.g. Empathy, Rhythmbox).

The current situation can lead to confusion for the user.

I suggest to add a 4th button when it is possible to minimize in systray. Of course, this button shall have a different design, so that there is no confusion with "Close" button.

Example attached.

An application could then choose to show the "Minimize to try" button instead of the "Close" button.

(for info : http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/24255/)

[exzemat (exzemat)]

the mockup is an good idea: the dot give direction to the notification zone

[Didier Roche-Tolomelli (didrocks)]

this has nothing to do with the window manager, it's application by application. So, a task should be opened against each application.

[YannUbuntu (yannubuntu)]

Thank you for your answers.

- I will try to open a task for each application that reduces to systray when clicking "Close" button, please don't hesitate to add more if I forget some.
- I suppose all upstream applications won't accept such modification, or not at the same time. As "Consistency" concerns (and have impact in) the distribution, I think such changes should be first performed via small patches by Ubuntu desktop team.
- I looked into gconf-editor but saw no possibility to add a 4th "minimize to systray" button, is there something to improve in Gconf ?
- As a workaround, I would find it more logical that the "Minimize to systray" action would be performed by the "Minimize" button instead of the "Close" button.

[Marnanel Thurman (marnanel)]

We had a long discussion on this very subject back in 2008 on the Metacity blog:

http://blogs.gnome.org/metacity/2008/12/23/notifisation/

The "minimise" button is not going to start sending your apps to the systray any time soon.

[YannUbuntu (yannubuntu)]

I am pleased to see that I am not the first to point out this issue.

Can't Ubuntu solve this "User experience issue" by a little patch ?

Just changing the icon according to its behavior would be fine :
- "cross button" to close the application
- "dot button" to minimize in systray

(I think no need to change applications current behavior, so no worry for upstream teams.)

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

I believe the agreed behaviour is:

 - the close button just closes the window
 - if the app is doing something which can run in the background, while
still showing that it's running through the indicators, it should do so
   - e.g. if rhythmbox is playing a song or sharing music in the
background, let it stay there
 - apps which run in the background should be able to "bring to
foreground" through their indicator
 - those apps should have an explicit "Quit" menu item, which quits them

Mark

[exzemat (exzemat)]

Hy

Imagine a new concept of button
- The cross : the cross must be change when the consequence of close is different.
The red cross : the red cross is to close application
The grey cross : the grey cross is to close window
       An example: gimp
Gimp have one important window : when you close it, the application is close => red cross
The other window in gimp are “tools window” : we can close the window, perhaps the application always run => grey cross

- The dot : this is a new button
When application can run in systray, a new button appear: a dot
        An example: empathy
Red cross to close empathy
Dot to minimize in systray

In my mind we don't need specified explicit "quit" menu (this can be confused), we just need an explicit and specified button to minimize in systray and an "close" button which can change when the consequence of "close" change (close window or close application)

[Marnanel Thurman (marnanel)]

YannUbuntu: Nobody can solve this with "a little patch", for the reasons I already gave. There are a number of thorny issues involved. I can explain in detail if you like, but you will get an idea by reading the page I linked to.

[Marnanel Thurman (marnanel)]

(YannUbuntu: although your suggestion would be a lot simpler to implement than most which are suggested for this topic.)

[exzemat (exzemat)]

I understand that is complex and that the new concept must be clear.
but I really think that "one button for one fonction" is really in the gnome concept (simplicity, consistence). and I think that the actual button's concept in ubuntu must evolve.

[YannUbuntu (yannubuntu)]

Dear all, thanks for your answers.

@Mark : "Close button just closes the window" : I agree that this behavior is currently respected by all apps, so in this meaning, the "Close button" is already consistent and this bug is invalid.

I have 2 related suggestions that could improve the user experience : http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/25801 . I know that Solution #2 is possible for applications in the Notification Zone (Empathy PPA already uses it), but I don't know if this could be implemented for apps in the new Notification Applet.

[Didier Roche-Tolomelli (didrocks)]

For your information, I just uploaded a fix in rhythmbox which hides it on close button and when you use <control>w. You an then bring it back using the soundmenu.